[santry]

> [If you use git merge --squash some-branch] [w]hen a QA person or your boss says, "Hey, is some-feature {merged into QA, deployed}" you have to resort to `git log` spelunking.

Of course you shouldn't use merge --squash in that context. That doesn't mean you should never use merge --squash. You just shouldn't use it to rewrite public history. Do you have a local branch in which you fixed some bugs and which branch has not been pushed out to the world and would you like to use merge --squash to merge it into master? Go for it! But if that branch _has_ been pushed out to the world, just use a regular merge.

The fundamental practice the author is arguing against is rewriting public history. But instead of making that point, he makes these sensationalist, dogmatic assertions that rebase, merge --squash and commit --amend are evil and should never be used. Until the end of the article, where he finally admits that really what he (correctly) has a problem with is rewriting public history.

OK, fine. Just title the article "You shouldn't rewrite public history".

[pjstadig]

I would, but that would mean rewriting public history! So, I'm kinda stuck on that one. :-(